London Transport

HC Deb 14 December 1992 vol 216 cc174-92

2.7 am

Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South)

There is a tradition in the House that if one has an interest in a topic one ought to declare it, so it is only appropriate for me to declare that I have an interest in the improvement of London transport because I am a frequent user of it. I am a frequent user of the Northern line, which is all too often described as the "misery line". A former chairman of London Transport, Sir Keith Bright, once described it as an abomination, and I do not believe that the quality of the service has improved sufficiently for that description to cease to apply.

My fundamental belief is that the only answer to London's traffic problems is to increase investment in public transport. It is clear that there can be little additional road building in London, because Londoners' resistance to such developments is great, the costs are huge, and the benefits are slight in terms of relieving traffic congestion. One of the lessons of building urban motorways has been that all too often the better road immediately generates increased traffic, and at the end of the day there is no less congestion. Road building in cities is a wonderful example of Say's law, with supply creating its own demand.

The only road that offers much hope for improving traffic flows in London is the M25, London's ring road. The widening of the M25 and perhaps eventually the building of a "son of M25" offers some hope for Londoners. What we must also recognise is that, while there will be little additional road building, car ownership in London is likely to increase by a further 50 per cent. over the next 20 years. It is up to the Government and to others to decide what can be done to stop London grinding to a complete halt.

As I see it, the solution is a massive increase in investment in public transport. It is true that my hon. Friend the Minister has approved a number of red routes, but they merely delay Armageddon. They may speed up the flow of traffic into central London, but they can do nothing to provide parking spaces in central London. There are others who see road pricing as a panacea for the problems of traffic in London. We have still to discover whether it is technically feasible, and at the very best it is only a medium-term solution. I believe that, ideally, any road pricing should be introduced after public transport has been improved, rather than before.

It is common ground in the House that London Transport was starved of investment in the early 1980s. The Greater London council, the demise of which is unregretted in London, made a deliberate decision to subsidise fares rather than to improve services. The Livingstone years were the locust years for London Transport. Investment in rolling stock was at £60.6 million in 1980–81. By 1984–85, it had fallen to £17.7 million.

The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) was responsible for a massive decline in investment in rolling stock by London Transport. That inadequate investment was used so that there could be cheaper fares on London Transport for American tourists. The GLC should have produced a better service for Londoners rather than cheaper fares for visitors to the capital. The task facing London Transport and my hon. Friend the Minister today is to make good the neglect of the past, to invest in new routes and to provide the services that will be necessary once the recession is over.

I will talk for a minute about the Northern line, the London Transport service that I endure all too often. On the Northern line, we have an information service which was once described as being at the frontiers of technology, but it is far behind those frontiers today and is frequently regarded as unsatisfactory by those who use it. The trains of the Northern line are frequently graffiti-ridden, uninviting and not as clean as one would like. It is true that London Transport has sought to improve the quality of the stations. I pay tribute to those who work on London Transport for the amount of refuse that they collect at the stations, but it is a poor reflection on those who use the stations that London Transport has to remove so much rubbish day in and day out.

The new Angel station on the Northern line is substantially better than the previous station. Building new stations and improving other stations is essential if we are to get the increased traffic that is expected. However, although we can see some clean stations and some new stations, many of the other stations on the Northern line and elsewhere suffer from inadequate investment. Only one escalator out of three at London Bridge station was working today. We frequently find that lifts are not working. The saga of Highgate station is well known in other parts of London. Many of our stations need a radical overhaul; the clocks do not work and there are far too few automatic ticket gates. There is also a need for massive modernisation.

The autumn statement affects London Transport in two respects. The first is that conditional approval was given for investment in the Jubilee line. That was warmly welcomed by all who are concerned about the future of London. The Jubilee line extension will benefit docklands and certain parts of south London that currently lack adequate public transport. However, many of us are concerned about the reluctance of the banks to cough up. Today's—or was it yesterday's—edition of the Evening Standard suggests that the banks were somewhat reluctant to cough up their share of the Jubilee line money. What happens if the banks do not cough up? Will the extension then be doomed? What will happen to the £1.4 billion that the Government were committed to spending on the Jubilee line extension?

If the Jubilee line extension is cancelled because the banks refuse to pay their part of the bill, I hope that the rest of the money will be spent elsewhere in London. The need is there. People who travel on the London underground know that it must be improved. However, much more importantly, my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Secretary for Transport, by agreeing to the extension to the Jubilee line, have told the House and the country that the £1.4 billion in available for investment in the line.

If, for reasons created by the banks, that money is not going to be spent on the Jubilee line, my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London should use that good local government term "virement" and say that the money that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said would allocated to transport in London should benefit from virement from the Jubilee line to other services in London Underground.

The second feature of the autumn statement which affects London Transport is the reduction from £752 million to £530 million in the external financing limit of London Transport's core business for 1993–94. There were other reductions for 1994–95 and 1995–96. I remind the House that that compares with a recommendation by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission that we should spend £750 million on London Underground. I realise that the 1993–94 figures are set in concrete, but I ask my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues to consider the figures further out. Just as they were willing to change the figures agreed in 1991, I hope that they will be willing to change the medium-term figures agreed in 1992.

I would also like my hon. Friend the Minister to consider his budget for transport in London and see whether he can seek virement from road building to public transport. The return to Londoners will be much better if he does that. We must also consider new ways of financing investment in public transport in London. Today's Financial Times reported that the Government, the Confederation of British Industry and London Transport should be looking at new ways of financing the necessary investment to improve our transport facilities.

I hope that we can consider the role of the private sector as several stations, including Hammersmith and Mansion House, have been improved by property developers. Today, I recognise that not many property developers are trying to improve anything; they arc merely trying to survive. At some stage in the next two to three years, however, the developers will come back to town. I hope that London Transport will be encouraged to use the skill, the know-how and the cash of private developers to improve stations, because improving stations is essential if we are to get better services within London.

I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to examine the possibility of private sector leasing. We have allowed British Rail to lease rolling stock for some of the south-east train lines. If British Rail is allowed to lease rolling stock, there is no logical reason why London Transport should not be allowed to do the same.

I should also like my hon. Friend and the Confederation of British Industry to examine the possibility of industry making a greater contribution to London Transport. It is essential for the prosperity of shops, offices and the tourist industry in London, to have a decent underground network. We should consider whether those important sources of employment in London can provide extra money to revive London Transport.

As the theme of my speech. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the editorial in the Financial Times which summarises the argument in one sentence: If London is to maintain its international competitive position, the government needs to think urgently about how it is going to cope with the strains on its infrastructure. My hon. Friend is capable of that thought, and I believe that he will put forward many positive proposals in the next few months.

2.22 am

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)

I am grateful that the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) chose this subject for his ballot.

I wonder whether the House would first bear with me for a moment. I would like to preface my comments by sharing with the House a considerable sadness to my Liberal Democrat colleagues. About 6 o'clock last evening, the senior parliamentary researcher for the Liberal Democrats here in the House of Commons died. He was aged about 30 and had for the last couple of weeks fought pneumonia and cancer. He had worked in the House for several years, and led the team to research people who back us up here. His name was Ewan Cameron. He was an extremely bright and able and greatly respected young man. He worked for me and other colleagues before he came to his most recent job. The parliamentary staff and my colleagues are devastated. Often, we go without saying how grateful we are to the people who, do the work, unseen and unsung, to keep us well informed, well briefed and well equipped with arguments from both sides of the House. It would be unfair and unreasonable of me tonight, and I would not have wished, to begin without paying the greatest tribute to Ewan, whom we will all miss greatly. We send our love and wishes to his parents and family.

Londoners probably spend as much time talking about London Transport as about the weather. That does not apply only to those who use the buses, trains and tubes. The subject of London Transport is raised fairly regularly in the House, and it is a dominant issue during transport questions. It has a far greater proportion of political interest than the 15 per cent. of us who live in London might justify, or even the greater percentage of those who work here and visit here.

We are grateful that a Minister has responsibility for London Transport. I pay tribute, as others have done and I expect will do, to the Minister for Transport in London for his interest and knowledge. Inevitably, once he saw that the subject had been selected, he would expect several questions about what is going on. I want to ask several questions. The opportunity is timely, given that it is only a matter of weeks since the autumn statement, which obviously had a severe impact on London Transport funding, the subject of tonight's debate.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not know whether you noticed the comments of London Transport in response to the Chancellor's statement on the funding of transport in the years ahead. The chairman of London Transport was not pleased with the result. That is not surprising. There was effectively a 30 per cent. cut in funding, according to London Transport, as a result of the autumn statement. That came as a disappointment to London Transport and London Members of Parliament after last year's statement and commitments of considerable extra investment.

I shall quote what the Secretary of State for Transport said last year, and the response of the chairman of London Transport this November. Last year the Secretary of State said: By 1993–94, London Underground investment in the existing railway should be over £700 million a year. This takes full account of the conclusions of the report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission earlier this year, which noted the need"— this is important—

for an average expenditure of £700 to £750 million a year in order to provide an acceptably modern network. The response to this year's figures by Mr. Wilfred Newton was:

We now face the real prospect of deteriorating services, and the loss of some 7,000 jobs in supply industries … Twelve months later we are facing savage cuts: 30 per cent. next year, 31 per cent. the year after and 26 per cent. in 1995–96. This returns us to the weary stop-go cycle we had every reason to believe was behind us. Higher fares next year and lower wage increases are dwarfed by the severity of today's swingeing cuts. Of course, we could go back into history and have an interesting and relevant debate about the level of investment during the time when the Greater London council was in charge of London Transport. We rehearsed much of that debate when we discussed the Bill which set up London Transport. I served on the Standing Committee which considered that Bill, and the Bill which abolished the GLC. I might add that I did not support either Bill. However, such a historical debate would not be particularly helpful now.

The key issue is the future and future levels of investment. It is clear that, unless something changes, expenditure on London Transport will be in difficulty as a result of the Government's commitment to cutting public expenditure. We shall lose a great deal in the years ahead—not this year but in the years from next April on. I am sure that the Minister and his colleagues do not rejoice in that. They have had to take their share, like everyone else, of the brunt of a decision made by the Government about cutting public expenditure.

However, we must ask some appropriate questions. First, what will be done about the reduced investment? What chance is there of those cuts being reversed? What chance is there of a return to the increased levels of investment which the Government accepted should be made? What chance is there of the public investment which many Members of Parliament—not only Opposition Members—have argued is necessary if the London transport system is to be equipped to deal with the demands of the decade, let alone the decades ahead?

Mr. Wilfred Newton went on to say: cuts in investment will mean worsening service quality in order to maintain safety. Last month, the Underground met every Government service quality objective, five months ahead of schedule. That progress has been torpedoed today. He also said that many of the basic infrastructure projects would be at risk. He dealt with specific matters of anxiety, such as plans to relieve congestion of overcrowded stations, and provide public information—all measures for which the public are asking and would find useful. He ended by saying that probable—I accept that it is probably—London Transport would not be able to proceed with the new escalators between Bank and Monument, and would certainly have to recommend the closure of Aldwych station. That is not an encouraging prospect.

Against that background, what will happen to the level of investment and to the need for security of investment year on year? Transport planners, like any other team of experts or engineers, need to know what money will be available this year and the year after, because transport planning is a medium to long-term exercise. When one develops new underground lines or improves busy stations, one cannot suddenly bring people on site or take them away. The key question is, what will happen next April and what can we do about it?

I also have a short and fairly straightforward list of more immediate questions. I suppose that the Minister would not expect me to do otherwise than to begin the list with a question about the proposed extension to the Jubilee line. The hon. Member for Hendon, South mentioned it, and quoted from Monday's Evening Standard, which suggested that there was not going to be a green light for the line this side of Christmas. I do not know what sort of light the line has so far had—perhaps it has been one of those Christmas tree lights, which has been flashing on and off. But where, oh where is the green light for the Jubilee line? I hope that it will come soon. I have made no secret about it—I have not spent hours in the House and elsewhere lobbying for the Jubilee line to give up now. I know that the Minister and the Government are equally committed, but commitment and conclusion are as yet apart.

I hear mixed noises. I would be grateful if the Minister could update us and give us some encouragement that the Jubilee line will go ahead, and that everything is being done to bring together and work on those people who have an interest in it, to get a decision as soon as possible. The project team and the engineers are in the wings, waiting to go, much of the preparatory work has been done with Parliament square and Bridge street having been dug up as part of that work. I am not complaining about that, but we are now waiting for the real thing. The sooner the holes are dug, the sooner it will all be over.

I declare an interest, as my constituency will have the largest part of the Jubilee line extension. My constituents look forward to the end product, but they will have to put up with a lot of disruption, spoil removal and noise in the meantime. Their plea, and mine, is "let us get on with it." I should be grateful to find out whether that is going to happen. If there is no specific news yet, what do we have to do to bring it about, where do we have to go, whom do we have to see, and which bankers' doors do we have to bang on to get a decision? Please, could we have a decision for Christmas? It would be a jolly good Christmas present, and I promise that I would close my eyes and go to bed early if there was a prospect of Father Christmas delivering that commitment at the end of the week.

Secondly, can we do anything to ensure that we do not lose the Thames riverbus? The Minister was good enough to come to my constituency to relaunch the service, from Greenland pier in the Surrey docks, earlier this year. The riverbus had a difficult beginning, but since its management changed hands it has done better and carried more people. The private sector has subsidised it to keep it going hut, judging by the reports, it seems shaky, and a potential competitor seems to have received ministerial endorsement.

I have a simple view of the riverbus. The Thames is the least congested, most central and most pleasant transport route in London, linking many of the most important transport interchanges. If we could have a riverbus that intersected London Transport's infrastructure rail and tube networks, if it could appear on the tube map and if we could have an integrated ticket system we would be well away. I should be grateful to hear about the Government's commitment to ensuring that the riverbus remains afloat in some form—and for a sign that they will try to ensure that the service does not sink but is increasingly available to and used by Londoners.

Next, what is the effect of the cuts announced in the underground service on the modernisation and works needed at many crucial stations? Obviously, I have an interest, with four stations in my constituency: London Bridge, which is very busy; the Elephant and Castle, Northern and Bakerloo lines, which are very busy; and the two stations on the East London line—Surrey Quays, or "Surrey Docks" as local people still prefer to call it, and Rotherhithe.

The other day I was with the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), the leader of Southwark council, the chief executive, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all at the Elephant and Castle, unveiling the next stage of the murals in the underpass, which are part of a programme supported by Government funding to make the Elephant and Castle safer, more commercially viable and more encouraging and welcoming to users.

However, the Northern Line station entrance is still grim and has put off some investors. Additional work on it was started some years ago but remains unfinished. Bare concrete spalling on the outside makes one think that one could be entering anything from a construction site to a urinal. It is important, because it serves an area in which a lot of effort has been made on a partnership basis between the local authority, the Government, the private sector and residents to try to bring the Elephant back to life. The owners painted the shopping centre pink to try to make people feel that things were brightening up. People may not like it, but at least they notice it. It has brought business and other investors back to the Elephant.

My final question is about buses, particularly the concessionary fares scheme. There has been a round of negotiations, as there is bound to be under the present system, to consider whether the concessionary fares scheme is to be continued in future. That requires all the local authorities to decide their position. Under legislation, there is a fallback position, which is less good if local authorities do not agree.

My constituents over state retirement age ask me most often, "Will we still have our concessionary fares scheme?" It matters enormously to them. I appreciate that many colleagues from other parts of the country may be jealous of London Members because they do not have a similarly generous scheme. It is worth keeping in London, however, irrespective of whether such schemes are less generously funded in other parts of the country, because in areas with less car ownership, it provides mobility and access, and makes London theirs. Thanks to this scheme, many of our citizens who might otherwise be imprisoned by physical or financial circumstances are enabled to travel round the city.

Mr. John Marshall

Will the hon. Gentleman join me in condemning the politically motivated attempt year after year to frighten pensioners in London that the scheme is about to go? At every annual round since at least 1986, it has been suggested that my constituents and many others are about to lose that scheme. It has caused much unnecessary worry and suffering to elderly people.

Mr. Hughes

I condemn all rumours and scaremongering, but I attend the meetings of the Greater London forum for the elderly that are held in the House and those of other cross-London pensioners' organisations, and I know that they are not scaremongering when they express their concern. They regularly ask me and other colleagues across the party divide to campaign to ensure that this scheme is guaranteed. The way that the system operates —which does not guarantee it indefinitely, but only from year to year—inevitably generates concern.

I should be grateful if the Minister would say how far the negotiations have got. I have made inquiries, and understand that many boroughs have agreed to endorse the scheme fully. I believe that there may, however, be at least one borough—Kingston that has not. If that is so, I am sad, and it would be helpful if the Minister could give us some accurate information on the state of play. What can be done to ensure that scheme, in its present form, is fully guaranteed for the future?

Those four specific issues—the Jubilee line, the riverbus, tube station improvements and the concessionary fares scheme—are foremost in my mind tonight in relation to London transport, and in the minds of my constituents. If I can be reassured on those four topics, I shall go off on my Christmas holiday a happier man.

2.37 am

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)

The Opposition are grateful that the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) succeeded in the ballot and has raised the subject of the funding of London transport. It gives us the opportunity to set out once again our case and our criticism of the Government for their chronic under-funding of London's transport and the consequent hardship and higher costs that it brings for London commuters. The policies now pursued by the Government will create a bow wave of problems that will probably accumulate for future generations.

The hon. Member for Hendon, South painted a canvas of some criticism of the Government's stewardship of London's transport, but his fellow commuters on the Northern line and his constituents in Hendon, South will note that he failed to press charges against the Government. Indeed, I do not think that he even cautioned the Government, who have failed not just the hon. Gentleman's constituents but everyone in the 32 London boroughs and the thousands of other commuters who daily travel into the metropolis from the surrounding counties. I think that that is because the hon. Gentleman must partly share the Government's guilt in that he has sought to support and sustain Government economic policies which clearly aggravate the existing crisis in the funding of London's transport.

The hon. Member for Hendon, South referred to the autumn statement, its consequences and the betrayal of promises to London transport. Therefore, he must share much of the criticism that Northern line commuters will level at the Government. I think that he is a supporter of the plans to privatise the railways, which will obviously affect commuters coming into work in greater London.

Mr. John Marshall

The hon. Gentleman will know that one of the reasons why I and others favour privatisation is that, wherever privatisation has taken place, it has led to a massive increase in investment—and that is surely what is needed on the railways.

Mr. Mackinlay

All the evidence before the Select Committee on Transport has shown not only that privatisation will not bring investment, but that there is now a hiatus among some important industries connected with the railways, particularly those which build rolling stock. They have empty order books and are worried about the future. Even if orders for rolling stock were placed today, it would probably be too late to support and sustain some of these private industries.

There is currently a haemorrhage in rail freight due to the hiatus and uncertainty created by Government policies. It will not be possible to put the genie back into the bottle. Everyday that more freight is lost to British Rail means the loss of more income for British Rail and additional congestion and pollution on our roads. This is the result of the Government even having contemplated privatisation; the impact of implementing their policies in full can only be guessed at.

The hon. Member for Hendon, South took a ritualistic swipe at the Greater London Council. The problems of trying to keep the metropolis moving at minimum cost are manifestly aggravated by the lack of a strategic planning authority for greater London. The Wandsworth Borough News recently stated that the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) wants the Minister for Transport in London to co-ordinate bridge closures so that they caused the least possible disruption. Three Thames bridges were closed simultaneously, with enormous attendant problems for those crossing from south London to the north bank.

The hon. Member said that the problem was caused by a lack of co-ordination between Wandsworth and the borough of Kensington and Chelsea, and went on: Of course bridges have to be repaired, but surely it makes sense for someone to co-ordinate this and make sure that only one bridge is affected at a time. Since the abolition of the GLC there has been no such co-ordinating body. The case of the bridges amply shows that mobility planning in London is in a state of near-anarchy.

London Transport, British Rail and the other agencies which provide mobility around our capital city are in crisis. That crisis is indicative of a much wider problem. It is not so much a case of a capital region in decline as of a proud and ancient London falling into decay. That decay is exemplified by what is happening to investment in public transport. It is a matter of fact that the Government continue to cut investment in real terms in London Transport, and in the underground especially. In the autumn statement, the Government chose to renege on their promise to accept the recommendation of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission—that the underground should get £700 million a year. As the hon. Member for Hendon, South said, that was cut to £513 million a year a major reduction, resulting from the Government's mishandling of the economy.

The answer lies in a change of economic strategy. There is an immediate need for some Government initiatives, until such time as a strategic authority for London is set up—democratically elected and installed, I hope, by a Labour Government—to maximise the use of public transport, to minimise the costs to customers and to ensure that, where there has to be road traffic, there is also action to minimise increases in pollution, noise and congestion.

The hon. Members for Hendon, South and for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred to the River Thames. It is a tragedy that that great potential asset is so under-used. I hope that future policies initiated by a strategic authority or by a Labour Government—albeit some time away—will endeavour to exploit the River Thames commercially, as a way of taking not hundreds but thousands of people to their place of work, as well as making sure that it has an important part to play in the recreation of Londoners and those who live in surrounding counties.

The question of a strategic authority cannot be divorced from land use planning. Transport planning and funding cannot be divorced from land use planning, which also supports the argument for a central strategic authority—which the Government have failed to provide. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey referred to the response of London Transport's chairman when he realised the impact that the autumn statement would have on his service.

Although I was not present, I guess that London Transport's chairman threw up his hands when he said, "The result of the autumn statement returns us to the weary stop-go cycle we had reason to believe was behind us." One can legitimately claim that there will continue to be problems in the years immediately ahead, and a bow-wave of problems for Londoners in the next decade and in the decades beyond as a result of the underfunding announced in the autumn statement.

Investment in London Underground will effectively be cut by 30 per cent. in 1993–94, 31 per cent. in 1994–95, and 26 per cent. in 1995–96. The Government would have liked to brag today that the Jubilee line extension had been given the go-ahead, but we know from last night's Evening Standard that they find themselves in an embarrassing situation because that cannot be done.

It never ceases to surprise me that people who advocate and defend market forces, and who always project the idea of private investment as the panacea for all our problems, are taken aback when things go wrong. Conservative Members have amazing cheek when they criticise everyone but themselves. In the case of the hiatus in the Jubilee line's funding and planning, there have been complaints and criticisms about the banks. The banks have a duty to their shareholders to maximise their profits and minimise their losses and to ensure that all risks are kept to the minimum. The hiatus in the funding of the Jubilee line shows that the banks have legitimate grounds for caution.

That is a statement of fact. We require from Government real intervention, to ensure that the Jubilee extension is built with the Minimum of delay. I listened carefully to the comments of the hon. Member for Hendon, South but thought that he was rather defeatist, in that he invited the Minister to stand up and say, "The Jubilee line extension is off, and we shall spend the Government money set aside for that on other forms of transport for London." That is not good enough, and it would be a great betrayal of the people and businesses that are dependent on that line being constructed, and of those who anticipated that jobs would be created thereby assisting in the regeneration of a London now in deep recession. The Minister at least owes the House a reassurance tonight that it is still planned to build the Jubilee line extension, and that there are no great problems, despite the reports in the Evening Standard.

I am also concerned about the impact of cuts in funding for London's transport services—and for the underground in particular—on employment in London. Cuts in funding for the existing network—quite apart from the Jubilee line extension—will unquestionably increase unemployment, whereas we and others were hoping, of course, for an injection of funds to stimulate demand for jobs and services in the capital.

The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey referred to the pending privatisation of London Buses. In 1991–92 London Buses spent £24 million on new vehicles, and a similar programme is required each year to tackle the problem of its aging fleet. It is highly unlikely that, if privatisation goes ahead, any comparable investment will be made by the private sector. Privatisation will mean buses which do not turn up, buses which are unsafe, buses which have missed servicing, buses which will add to the pollution problem and, of course, higher fares. I fear that London residents do not fully appreciate what the impact of privatisation will be; it has, of course, already been experienced by people living outside London.

Like the Minister for Transport in London, I represent an Essex constituency. I am both frustrated and concerned at receiving letters from constituents—after a general election which my party regrettably lost—asking why their bus service have been curtailed. I am forced to explain to them that, when a bus services is privatised, its operators have a legitimate duty to the shareholders and themselves to maximise profits and minimise costs: they are not in the business of running services at a loss. I expect my constituents' experience to be replicated on many services across the London region if privatisation goes ahead.

We are told that, along with the proposals to privatise the bus fleet, we must endure the franchising of British Rail services. That is an important subject, which requires another occasion for the probing of the Government and the exposure of the folly of their policy. It should be said, however, that that policy has already halted investment in both rolling stock and the refurbishment of much of Network SouthEast. That, too, will present a bow wave of problems for future years.

Across London there is some political agreement, both between the Association of London Authorities—which largely represents Labour councils—and the London Boroughs Association, which represents Conservative councils. They have agreed priorities for investment in London's public transport, arguing that anything less than the £700 million promised by the Government for improvements to the London underground will prove catastrophic for both commuters and the network.

The extension of the Jubilee line requires £1.7 billion. The associations insist that the extension must be built, both to fulfil the moral commitment made to the people of London and to provide all the employment and commercial consequences to which I have referred. They want progress on the Hackney-Chelsea line, on crossrail, on the south London orbital rail link and on the British Rail east London line. They look forward to invest in light rail systems, to the completion of the planned extension of the docklands light railway, and to improvements in the interchange between rail and underground. They want 450 new buses, including low-floor single-deck buses to enable people with disabilities to use public transport. That programme, in addition to planned maintenance and safety work, is required and expected by Conservative and Labour politicians on behalf of their electorate, but the Government seem unable or unwilling to deliver it.

I make one further reference to rail privatisation. It is proposed that the track authority will charge out the full costs of the use of track and related facilities. Will that mean that London Underground will have to meet the full costs of the British Rail track over which its services run? If so, the inevitable consequence will be higher fares on London Underground. That question has not been answered in the White Paper or the franchising document or in the Select Coimmittee on Transport. Where there is an interface between British Rail and London Underground, what will be the cost to London Underground of the establishment of the track authority?

I make no apology for referring to a matter that has not so far been raised in the debate—the future of the British Transport police and their role on London's underground system. With no publicity whatever, the Government issued a consultation document entitled, "The Future Status of British Transport Police". For a long time, that document was not even available in the Vote Office and it was certainly given no fanfare. It was supposed to address the question of the future of the British Transport police following the privatisation of British Rail, but it also contains an important section which should concern each and every Londoner. The Government are considering removing British Transport police from London's underground.

Everyone who uses London's underground and tries to travel around the city will consider such a proposal foolhardy in the extreme. It is also discourteous to the British Transport police, given the high standard of skilled policing that we receive from them on London's underground. It is true that there are not enough police on the underground, but despite the lack of resources the British Transport police provide a good service and who are endeavouring, with some success, to reduce crime on the system. In my view, it is ludicrous to contemplate their removal. I hope that the Minister will reassure us today by telling us that the suggestion has already been consigned to the dustbin.

No doubt the proposal has been dictated by the need to save some money, but it will no do so. It will merely mean more hazards to those who use the underground by increasing the risk of crime. In additon, we must remember that the British Transport police have always played an important role in trying to promote safety. Many of us will recall the great bravery of members of that force at the time of the King's Cross fire.

It is only fair that I should refer to the staff who try to provide a good service on London's transport. It is fashionable to criticise those whom the public meet. Their morale is low because they are constantly the subject of unfair criticism by travellers who are themselves deeply frustrated by the poor service that they receive. The staff on our underground and at British Rail Network SouthEast stations get all the brickbats, yet they are merely victims.

It is the Government who are responsible for the delays, the cancellation of services and the high fares. They are the people who presided over the decline in mobility and in our transport system throughout London. I hope that when the next opportunity arises—albeit some time away—the good people of London will reflect upon that point and that their criticism of the guilty people will be reflected in the ballot box.

3.4 am

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on having secured this debate and on his assiduity in still being here at 3 am. He was in some doubt as to whether it is Monday or Tuesday. I know that it is 15 December, which, if I may be forgiven and if it is not lese-majesté, is a dies mirabilis for me because, on this day four years ago, we won the Epping Forest by-election. I should like to record that fact for that, if for no other reason. Although it is a huge pleasure to be here, amid the sea of faces that I see arrayed in front of me, that fact gives the debate a particular piquancy.

I welcome my hon. Friends the Members for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) and the hon. Members for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) and for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), who I imagine might have strayed into the Chamber awaiting further events.

Mr. Henry McLeish (Fife, Central)

The Minister should be apprehensive.

Mr. Norris

That, of course, is not for me, I am delighted to say. In particular, our colleague, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) is clearly concentrating hard on future debates. I do not propose to disturb his intense and voluble concentration at this hour.

I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) would convey my condolences to Ewan Cameron's relatives. I am very sorry to hear the news that the hon. Gentleman brought to the House. There is very little else that one can say. The hon. Gentleman very much appreciated what Mr. Cameron was able to do for his party and, indeed, for the hon. Gentleman personally.

I should welcome specifically the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). He is an Essex man. I am, of course, only an honorary Essex man; I was chosen because I had the necessary Essex credentials, which, at the time, were a great deal of money and very little taste. I have since managed to shed at least one of those credentials. I now have slightly less money and probably even less taste, but that is arguable. The hon. Gentleman is deputising for his hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who is engaged in deep research at this very minute and is unavoidably unable to be with us. None the less, we have had a very interesting debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, south raised a question about roads. Colleagues have interpreted the debate as being about London Transport, the company. I suppose that the debate is capable of being interpreted as meaning London transport generally.

My hon. Friend made an important point. I very much agree with him that road-building is not the answer to graphs which show ever-escalating vehicle ownership. It is an extraordinary phenomenon. I view such statistics rather on the same basis as one views population forecasts—not as inevitabilities—and therefore something for which we have to plan by laying down acres of concrete, but, on the contrary, as a warning of what is likely to happen unless we take action to change people's habits of vehicle ownership.

On that basis, my hon. Friend will know that in London we have four large continuing projects—the A406, the A13, the Hackney M11 link road and the east London river crossing. Those routes apart, each of them serves a distinct strategic purpose—our main aim for roads in London is to relieve congestion and to reduce accidents. That is exactly as it should be.

I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South that red routes merely delay Armageddon. I appreciate his argument that, whenever we do something to improve road capacity, all that happens is that traffic inevitably fills up the available road space. However, one of the things that has impressed me about the pilot programme is that it has not concentrated on maximising volume; it has regulated existing volume. The number of vehicles per hour entering the red route pilot scheme now at peak times is 1,200, which was the number before the pilot began.

It is important to emphasise that bus times and bus reliability have improved considerably as a result of that pilot route—that is extremely relevant to London Transport. As a consequence, 8,700 extra passengers a week now use the 43 and the 43X on that route, in comparison with a Londonwide reduction in bus patronage of 2.5 per cent. No doubt that reduction is a consequence of the fall in general economic activity.

The difference in passenger numbers achieved under the pilot scheme gives us hope for the future. We should follow that marker, which suggests that we can make people switch to public transport if it is made better by improving reliability and journey times.

The other great advantage of the red route pilot scheme has been the reduction in the accident rate. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South shares my delight in that. Over the pilot red route, the accident rate has reduced by 17 per cent., as opposed to the 7 per cent. reduction achieved in the boroughs through which that route passes. That pilot route has been an excellent experiment and we are now embarked upon the substantive programme to provide about 300 miles of priority routes.

Mr. Simon Hughes

I cannot disagree with the Minister on the figures, but he will be aware that there is a great deal of apprehension in the areas that will be subject to the red route programme for next year. People believe that the economic activity of roadside business should not be prejudiced, especially at a time of particular economic difficulty. A balance must be struck to ensure that the proposed red routes do not lead to the closure of shops and small businesses. I hope that the Minister will keep that in mind when he talks in the months ahead to the traffic director for London and others.

Mr. Norris

The hon. Gentleman is aware that I have a great deal of affection for businesses, especially small ones. I have made it clear at every stage that, if I seriously believed that the pilot route programme had a disadvantageous effect on businesses, I would stop it dead in its tracks. I repeat that assurance.

Although there is evidence, sadly, that businesses on the pilot red route have done badly in the past couple of years, the effects of failure have been no less sad for businesses further away from that route. I believe that that is now accepted by most objective observers. The evidence suggests that the improved legislation of parking—more than 600 new, legal, free parking spaces have been provided on the pilot route—has improved facilities for businesses in terms of not only their customers but loading and unloading. I accept the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, and I assure him that I am keeping it in mind. There is no evidence from the pilot route, however, to suggest that prospects for businesses have been damaged.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South made a thoughtful speech and I should like to refer to some of the issues that he raised. The report of the MMC on London Underground has been mentioned several times. The House will recall that that report recognised the concept of the decently modern metro. It quoted London Transport's estimate that between £700 million and £750 million was needed to achieve that aim in a broad 10-year cycle. We remain committed to that concept and those estimates have yet to be substantiated and fleshed out by LT.

I await with interest a more detailed plan showing how we shall achieve our decently modern metro target, what standards we shall be looking for and how they will be achieved in terms of time and money. Neither the MMC report nor the Government's response made a commitment to any particular level of funding. They stressed London Underground's estimate of the likely funds that would be needed.

Mr. Mackinlay

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Norris

Such is the interest in this debate that I may find myself short of time, but I should not want to deny the hon. Gentleman his hour of glory at the Dispatch Box. I hope that the hon. Member for Knowsley, North will be even more prepared to join in the debate.

Mr. Mackinlay

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and I shall be brief; I accept that earlier I took longer than I proposed. In February, the Minister for Public Transport reiterated that the Government accepted the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report which showed a need for funding of £700 million per annum. He went on to say:

a massive programme of improvements will be made to the Central line". [Official Report, 17 February 1992: Vol 204, c. 157.]

He also said that there would be consequential refurbishment of the Angel station and that other stations would be improved. Is that still on target, or is it on the backboiler as a result of the autumn statement?

Mr. Norris

I hoped not to have to say this to the hon. Gentleman because he is a decent chap and, although I am glad that few people are listening to me say it, I rather like him: he should not pick up briefs from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, who has obviously told him that his chances for promotion to the shadow Cabinet will be increased by accepting them. He should know that Angel station is open now. The refurbishment is worth £72 million; perhaps the hon. Member for Newham, North-West should have told the hon. Gentleman that before inviting him to speculate on the outcome of London Underground's plan. Never mind; better luck next time. We are all grateful to see the hon. Gentleman here and hope that he will stay for at least the next three years.

We have stressed that the amount of funding for London Transport must be determined against the Government's overall spending priorities. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey stressed that this is a difficult year, in which it has been necessary for every Department to rein in some of its expectations.

I have always taken the view that public expenditure projects must be assessed on the basis of not only desirability, which is important, but affordability. Every hon. Member, especially those who have been involved in local government, knows about the cut that is actually a cut in our ambitions rather than in cash. We have been able to maintain total funding for London Transport, including the Jubilee line, at about £1 billion a year over the next three years, which is a substantial commitment indeed. It is higher in real terms than in any previous year prior to the current one and higher than any level achieved when the Labour party was in office.

It is for London Transport to determine the details of the expenditure survey results that we have made available, but it is likely that London Transport will be able to spend about £500 million more over the next three years than it has been able to spend in the past three years.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South asked why leasing is available to British Rail but not to London Underground. I am sure that he is aware that for leasing to be attractive to the Government, we must see an after-market for the product to be leased; in other words, the Government merely wish to use the asset for a set period and then pass it on. In so far as we have created an after-market in rail services, through the franchising proposals, it is clearly appropriate for the Government to allow British Rail, subject to certain conditions, to enter into leasing commitments for rolling stock. In the absence of any such after-market for London Underground, leasing of itself is of no advantage to the Government.

We must remember that, without the transference of risk, the Government cannot contemplate leasing on any terms other than those on which they contemplate other borrowings. The Government are the keenest borrower in any market, so leasing, which is essentially a financing operation, offers no real benefit unless it is accompanied by the existence either of an after-market or of the concept of transference of risk.

I had the pleasure of travelling on the Northern line yesterday morning—by that, I mean Monday, which is the last day of which I have any clear recollection. Many of us are familiar with that line. It has suffered badly in the past not only from under-investment—it is freely acknowledged that under-investment has been a symptom of London Underground for many years under Administrations of both colours—but from less than effective management.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South knows that the management situation has changed. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission report recognised that the Northern line management had improved immeasurably, as had its service quality. With typical thoroughness, my hon. Friend invited me some months ago to join him on a trip on the Northern line—I had been in my job just over 24 hours when he issued his invitation. Unfortunately for him, we had a flawless journey from start to finish, with tidy platforms, clean trains and polite staff; it was a thoroughly pleasant journey to work. None the less, my hon. Friend spent every second of the journey telling me how awful the journey was on the other 364 days of the year.

I know that my hon. Friend does a good job for his constituents, but I must tell him that for the most recent two reporting periods—the four-week periods ending 12 September and 10 October—the Northern line ran about 98 per cent. of its scheduled trains, compared with a network target of 97.5 per cent., and achieved 94 to 95 per cent. of timetabled intervals between trains, compared with a target of 91 per cent.

It is for London Transport, of course, to assess priorities for the 1992 settlement. I know that my hon. Friend will continue to press on LT, and on me, the case for the Northern line refurbishment. I can confirm that after the Central line programme is finished—costing about £800 million—we shall move on to the Northern line, but it will be for LT to determine exactly when that happens. My hon. Friend is right to say that future years' public expenditure survey negotiations are uncharted waters for us, but I hope that we shall be able to move on to the work as quickly as we can.

Several hon. Members have mentioned the Jubilee line extension, so I am glad to be able to throw some light on the present state of affairs. I must preface my remarks by telling the hon. Member for Thurrock again that he ought not to stray into unfamiliar territory; he seems to make the mistake that some of his colleagues—in local government as well as in the House—have made, in inviting the Government to make up the deficit caused by the collapse of Olympia and York.

Other counsels have been wiser, and it has been pointed out that when Canary Wharf is 15 minutes away from Green Park, its value as a piece of real estate will be substantially enhanced. That argument is certainly not lost on the bankers who now find themselves the owners of the property. Their commitment to the attempt to put a deal together on the terms originally agreed between the Government and Olympia and York has been perfectly genuine.

The House will know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was able to confirm in his autumn statement that the Government's commitment to the Jubilee line extension partnership is intact. I underline that the commitment is a substantial one of about £1.6 billion. The Government have always recognised that the partnership demanded that there be participation by the private sector. That substantial participation amounts to about £400 million in cash.

I am as disappointed as all hon. Members are that the negotiations to sign that agreement have not yet been concluded. There is no evidence of anything other than good faith on all sides. Remembering the amount of time taken and the costs that my solicitor managed to pass on to me when he recently conveyed to me a house worth marginally more than £100,000, I reckon that when dealing with £400 million of my money, I should want my solicitor to be even more keen on my behalf. I am not surprised, in all seriousness, that, given the complexity of the negotiations and the complexity of the document that was agreed between LT and Olympia and York, detailed negotiations are required.

One of the stumbling blocks, which I know that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey has long recognised because of his long experience of the project, is that we are now dealing with a disparate bunch of groups, including American banks, Canadian banks, Swiss banks, other European banks and British banks, all with different interests, securities, ambitions and liquidity ratios. We are making progress in that context. I hope to be able to have happier news in due course. The outcome will always depend on us reaching agreement on the terms that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has laid down.

Mr. Simon Hughes

I am grateful to the Minister for illuminating a little of what is happening. Would he summarise the position by letting the House know whether he can honestly say to us that he and the Government are optimistic that there will be a satisfactory outcome in the near future?

Mr. Norris

I am sorry that I cannot express a personal view on the negotiations. I believe that in the public interest—I am acutely conscious of the interests of the taxpayers, whom I serve—it is appropriate for me simply to give the House a record of where the negotiations now stand. The opera is not over until the fat lady sings. This particular fat lady has not even got out her music sheet. When the deal is signed, then the deal is done. I hope that that will be as soon as possible, but I do not speculate on the outcome. I hope that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey will understand.

The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey also raised the question of Riverbus. Riverbus is a private sector initiative. It is essentially a marketing enterprise very imaginatively put together by the the developers of Canary Wharf and of Chelsea Harbour. I appreciate the problem that Riverbus has made towards viability but, as the House knows, it is some way from it at the moment.

I am also satisfied, as is LT, that there are significant public transport options for those arriving at London Bridge and seeking to make their way to Canary Wharf. That is the peak journey for the present riverbus service. The alternatives include the D1, the docklands light railway and the Waterloo-City link. In those circumstance, the Government take the view that their responsibility to provide a public transport network is adequately discharged.

Hon. Members have raised the question of the possible acceptance of Riverbus into the travelcard system. That is not nearly as easy as is sometimes suggested, not least by the energetic Mr. William Edgerley, who never loses an opportunity to press the case for Riverbus—rightly so, as managing director of the company. The House will appreciate that there is a given pot of money coming from travelcard revenues. If a large slug of that is to provide for a Riverbus contribution, it must come from London Buses, London Underground or Network SouthEast. Riverbus is a very expensive small commodity selling a very expensive product into a less expensive market.

This year's settlement fully maintains provision for the crossrail scheme and it provides for more than £200 million worth of preparatory work. That underlines the Government's commitment to the scheme. I am sorry to have to correct the hon. Member for Thurrock once more, but the east London line extension is not a British Rail scheme. I am sure that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West would remind him that it is a London Transport scheme. It is for LT to decide the priority that it wants to attach to the project. The scheme is worth while and has a very good cost-benefit ratio and I hope that it will receive some priority.

I must point out to the hon. Member for Thurrock that there will be no cost to London Underground in terms of an impact on fares arising from the track authority plans contained in the proposals that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will bring forward for rail privatisation.

In that regard, the hon. Member for Thurrock will appreciate that the House could hardly consider proposals for franchising rail services, no matter what view hon. Members take of those proposals, without considering the future of the British Transport police. If the hon. Member for Thurrock has read the document to which he referred, he will be aware that it concludes that, as far as London Underground is concerned, there is no rationale for any change. The report pays heavy and deserved tribute to the work of Chief Constable Desmond O'Brien and his men in the British Transport police, for whom I have a high regard.

I am absolutely convinced that we can do two things to make bus travel infinitely more attractive: the first relates to more bus priority measures similar to those that we are now deploying so successfully and the other is to open up the bus market in London by introducing competition, innovation, enterprise and accelerated capital through privatisation and deregulation. That process does not mean the creation of a free-for-all. It means moving from a system led by planners who believe that they know better than customers what services customers want to one in which ultimately customers determine the form and content of services.

The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey referred to concessionary fares. He will know that they are the responsibility of the boroughs which finance and agree the scheme. That is right and the Government have no plans to change that. I cannot comment on the negotiations this year, because that is a matter between the local authorities and LT, except to point out that there is a reserve scheme available in legislation which, in the absence of agreement by 31 December, must be employed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South referred to the possibility of funds for the Jubilee line being deployed elsewhere if that project did not succeed. He will appreciate that I do not want particularly to address that prospect. He will also know that I cannot give him any such guarantee because the autumn statement makes it clear that those funds are discretely dedicated to the Jubilee line extension project and I have no authority to contemplate what might happen to those funds if they are not used for the Jubilee line.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South for allowing the House to have this useful debate. I pay tribute to the serious way in which he pursues the interests of his constituents, particularly in relation to the Northern line. I stress that the London Transport settlement allows for about £500 million more investment over the next three years than was possible over the last three years. I also stress my appreciation of the hard work and enterprise of the staff, from Wilfrid Newton down to station and bus operation level, who do an excellent job.

I suspect that it is sometimes forgotten, perhaps understandably, that, although everything in London is by no means perfect, the city of London must be compared not with some of its fellow European cities which are infinitely smaller, but with perhaps a handful of world cities, such as New York and Tokyo. When one makes that comparison, one realises that there is a remarkable amount happening in London's transport structure, which provides a service with which it is difficult to find a parallel anywhere in the world.

We have a coherent strategy for making London's transport service even better. I look forward to the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South, on which I know that I can rely, in improving that service further in years to come.